We need an Official Passing Statistic

[pogoball]

Does anyone know what would it take to make a new formal NCAA official measurement for serve receive beyond the almost useless error rate?

It's arguably the most important statistic in volleyball, yet the NCAA (and consequently other domestic competitive levels) doesn't have a good official way to measure and compare it.

Posting on the Dominique Gonzalez thread, just brought up this subject to me once again. Her receiving was incredible during the tournament and I would argue may have been the MOP of the tournament. She doesn't get that recognition because we have a limited way of expressing how much better she may (or may not) have been compared to other liberos.

To be blunt, it's shameful that we can't simply formalize this measurement and provide a way to celebrate the performances of the smaller athletes in the sport. While it has been getting better, for years the All American lists rarely listed any liberos. This is a position that many coaches now rate as one of the two or three most important positions to recruit on their rosters.

If we could express their most important contribution with a solid number, I think it would go a long way to giving proper recognition to this position.

[bluepenquin]

I totally agree.

ESPN was using 'Passing Percentage' that Karch referred to a couple times this weekend. I don't think they specifically defined, but it sounded like % of perfect to near perfect passes off the serve. The problem is it can be subjective, but I sure would love to see those numbers for individual's over the whole season.

[WahineFan44]

Dec 21, 2014 14:57:08 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

I totally agree.

ESPN was using 'Passing Percentage' that Karch referred to a couple times this weekend. I don't think they specifically defined, but it sounded like % of perfect to near perfect passes off the serve. The problem is it can be subjective, but I sure would love to see those numbers for individual's over the whole season.

Yeah that passing percentage confused me. I didn't understand how they calculated that or what they defined as a perfect pass. During the texas game, they actually said texas was passing better, and that was a shocker to me

[badgerbreath]

It's the subjective nature that is the problem. We'll want to compare liberos playing for different teams in different conferences, but how do you train people to make such judgements consistently? The teams definitely keep pass stats. But you don't get the feeling they want to release that hard won info.

[joetrinsey]

Dec 21, 2014 14:59:48 GMT -5 WahineFan44 said:

Dec 21, 2014 14:57:08 GMT -5 bluepenquin said:

I totally agree.

ESPN was using 'Passing Percentage' that Karch referred to a couple times this weekend. I don't think they specifically defined, but it sounded like % of perfect to near perfect passes off the serve. The problem is it can be subjective, but I sure would love to see those numbers for individual's over the whole season.

Yeah that passing percentage confused me. I didn't understand how they calculated that or what they defined as a perfect pass. During the texas game, they actually said texas was passing better, and that was a shocker to me

I was streaming that to Karch from my laptop.

That match was a little bit of a strange situation where Texas and BYU had an almost equal good pass %, but BYU was the better passing team, because they had more medium passes (10-13 feet off the net) while Texas had more shanked passes.

[joetrinsey]

Dec 21, 2014 15:01:43 GMT -5 badgerbreath said:

It's the subjective nature that is the problem. We'll want to compare liberos playing for different teams in different conferences, but how do you train people to make such judgements consistently? The teams definitely keep pass stats. But you don't get the feeling they want to release that hard won info.

It's not too tough:

"A ball passed at least 10' high, between the net and the 3m line, at least 5' from the right side line and 10' from the left side line"

is a reasonable definition for a "good pass" that can be followed with minimal training. Sure there will be subjective calls, but, in the end, I think they come out in a wash for players.

I would argue that the basketball assist and baseball error are much more subjective, but we still use them and find them valuable, we just don't take them as the holy grail. It's been shown that home scorers consistently give the home teams more assists in basketball and more errors in baseball (because assigning the play as an error to the fielder means the pitcher is not charged with giving up a hit), but it's a fairly small bias.

I think it would add a lot to NCAA box scores to see even a basic passing statistic.

[bluepenquin]

Dec 21, 2014 15:45:09 GMT -5 joetrinsey said:

Dec 21, 2014 15:01:43 GMT -5 badgerbreath said:

It's the subjective nature that is the problem. We'll want to compare liberos playing for different teams in different conferences, but how do you train people to make such judgements consistently? The teams definitely keep pass stats. But you don't get the feeling they want to release that hard won info.

It's not too tough:

"A ball passed at least 10' high, between the net and the 3m line, at least 5' from the right side line and 10' from the left side line"

is a reasonable definition for a "good pass" that can be followed with minimal training. Sure there will be subjective calls, but, in the end, I think they come out in a wash for players.

I would argue that the basketball assist and baseball error are much more subjective, but we still use them and find them valuable, we just don't take them as the holy grail. It's been shown that home scorers consistently give the home teams more assists in basketball and more errors in baseball (because assigning the play as an error to the fielder means the pitcher is not charged with giving up a hit), but it's a fairly small bias.

I think it would add a lot to NCAA box scores to see even a basic passing statistic.

This correct.  And comparing different Liberos playing for different teams in different conferences - we have to take all VB stats (at this point) with some grain of salt.  How do compare hitting % in the Big 10 vs. hitting % in the Metro Atlantic.  And returning a Hancock serve is completely different from anyone else's serve.  But we need to start somewhere - and this is fairly 'easy' and important information that tells us something in the long run.

[roger]

The same criticism can be shown in the blocking stats for BYU and PSU as BYU played some teams who permitted many attacks to be blocked so that their stats made them the "BEST BLOCKING TEAM IN THE NATION" Yes but not the best when they played PSU.

A number that I think is illuminating is the results of blocking as it relates to what happened was it a point for the blockers, the attackers and then what if dug and further play pursued. Some blocking maybe worse than no blocking.

[kro2488]

If you could watch enough matches of one team you could have accurate passing stats for the players but you have to keep in mind what a good pass is for one team might be bad for another depending on what they do with their offense 5-1 or 6-2 height of the setter etc...some setters can still set the middles with quicks in front, the two gap sets and the slide behind from 3 or 4 off...even in transition because they have a very good connection etc... So defining one set of criteria for passes on serve receive that puts a team "in system", is harder than one realizes at first, let alone a stat that shows how many quality digs that are made that a team can have all options in transition from defense back to offense. So I'm wondering for those of you whining and advocating for developing an official passing statistic, how are we going to take into an account that what might be a 2 pass for one team could be a 3 for another? I'd say what would be considered a 1 option pass would be less debatable...generally, but do you guys understand what I'm attempting to convey here? It's probably the reason why we don't have an "official" stat for it and coaches tend to keep their own versions that they take note of themselves beyond whatever the NCAA or everybody else developed.

[kro2488]

Dec 21, 2014 14:21:54 GMT -5 pogoball said:

Does anyone know what would it take to make a new formal NCAA official measurement for serve receive beyond the almost useless error rate?

It's arguably the most important statistic in volleyball, yet the NCAA (and consequently other domestic competitive levels) doesn't have a good official way to measure and compare it.

Posting on the Dominique Gonzalez thread, just brought up this subject to me once again. Her receiving was incredible during the tournament and I would argue may have been the MOP of the tournament. She doesn't get that recognition because we have a limited way of expressing how much better she may (or may not) have been compared to other liberos.

To be blunt, it's shameful that we can't simply formalize this measurement and provide a way to celebrate the performances of the smaller athletes in the sport. While it has been getting better, for years the All American lists rarely listed any liberos. This is a position that many coaches now rate as one of the two or three most important positions to recruit on their rosters.

If we could express their most important contribution with a solid number, I think it would go a long way to giving proper recognition to this position.

Also I don't think you really made a good argument for attempting to develop one, which i don't think is really possible given what I said in the previous post. Plenty of players make contributions to a team's success that are more unsung, but doesn't mean they aren't valuable and meaningful. The players the starters play against in practice that make them better every day, and or keep them sharp, they probably didn't play too much in the season or in the championships but they are part of the culture of the programs and the reasons for the successes they have as well, but no one cries about that really because most of us just recognize and know that.

[pogoball]

Dec 21, 2014 20:03:22 GMT -5 kro2488 said:

If you could watch enough matches of one team you could have accurate passing stats for the players but you have to keep in mind what a good pass is for one team might be bad for another depending on what they do with their offense 5-1 or 6-2 height of the setter etc...some setters can still set the middles with quicks in front, the two gap sets and the slide behind from 3 or 4 off...even in transition because they have a very good connection etc... So defining one set of criteria for passes on serve receive that puts a team "in system", is harder than one realizes at first, let alone a stat that shows how many quality digs that are made that a team can have all options in transition from defense back to offense. So I'm wondering for those of you whining and advocating for developing an official passing statistic, how are we going to take into an account that what might be a 2 pass for one team could be a 3 for another? I'd say what would be considered a 1 option pass would be less debatable...generally, but do you guys understand what I'm attempting to convey here? It's probably the reason why we don't have an "official" stat for it and coaches tend to keep their own versions that they take note of themselves beyond whatever the NCAA or everybody else developed.

I think you'd be surprised at how much interpretation goes on for ALL the statistics.

Just like any other statistical recording, a passing statistic needs to be defined. I'm able to describe my system to parents and novice players in about 5 minutes and get satisfactory stats afterwards. Many stat programs already use the 3-point system.

Here are my definitions as just an example:
3 points = pass between net and 10' line and received by setter in a way that she can set middles and right sides.
2 points = pass between net and 10' line so that setter can set outside and back set to another hitter
1 point = pass is set-able to someone by someone
0 points = error, overpass or pass results in scramble play

FIVB has a completely different set of stats for passing and setting. Perhaps that would be an improvement. I don't really care what system is used.

The point is that once we have a system in place, it facilitates the discussion for comparing liberos -- which allows for liberos to be appreciated properly. If Gonzalez passes at 2.3 for the tournament, but the liberos for the other final four teams were only passing at 1.8, 1.9 and 1.9, we'd say "wow, Gonzalez was a HUGE reason why Penn State was able to consistenly run their offense and win the national title".

Instead we get some people who actually compare the contribution of a libero on par with a practice player.

[kro2488]

Dec 21, 2014 23:59:38 GMT -5 pogoball said:

Dec 21, 2014 20:03:22 GMT -5 kro2488 said:

If you could watch enough matches of one team you could have accurate passing stats for the players but you have to keep in mind what a good pass is for one team might be bad for another depending on what they do with their offense 5-1 or 6-2 height of the setter etc...some setters can still set the middles with quicks in front, the two gap sets and the slide behind from 3 or 4 off...even in transition because they have a very good connection etc... So defining one set of criteria for passes on serve receive that puts a team "in system", is harder than one realizes at first, let alone a stat that shows how many quality digs that are made that a team can have all options in transition from defense back to offense. So I'm wondering for those of you whining and advocating for developing an official passing statistic, how are we going to take into an account that what might be a 2 pass for one team could be a 3 for another? I'd say what would be considered a 1 option pass would be less debatable...generally, but do you guys understand what I'm attempting to convey here? It's probably the reason why we don't have an "official" stat for it and coaches tend to keep their own versions that they take note of themselves beyond whatever the NCAA or everybody else developed.

I think you'd be surprised at how much interpretation goes on for ALL the statistics.

Just like any other statistical recording, a passing statistic needs to be defined. I'm able to describe my system to parents and novice players in about 5 minutes and get satisfactory stats afterwards. Many stat programs already use the 3-point system.

Here are my definitions as just an example:
3 points = pass between net and 10' line and received by setter in a way that she can set middles and right sides.
2 points = pass between net and 10' line so that setter can set outside and back set to another hitter
1 point = pass is set-able to someone by someone
0 points = error, overpass or pass results in scramble play

FIVB has a completely different set of stats for passing and setting. Perhaps that would be an improvement. I don't really care what system is used.

The point is that once we have a system in place, it facilitates the discussion for comparing liberos -- which allows for liberos to be appreciated properly. If Gonzalez passes at 2.3 for the tournament, but the liberos for the other final four teams were only passing at 1.8, 1.9 and 1.9, we'd say "wow, Gonzalez was a HUGE reason why Penn State was able to consistenly run their offense and win the national title".

Instead we get some people who actually compare the contribution of a libero on par with a practice player.

Generally its evident to the naked eye which libero on which side is passing better... don't need stats for it. Now for comparing every other libero out there? perhaps, but once again its not this HUGE need i don't think.